MWC: Intel, Nokia partner for MeeGo mobile platform

(Mobile World Congress) Two Linux-based mobile operating systems -- Intel's Mobilin and Nokia's Maemo -- will be merged into one platform that will run on a wide variety of mobile devices including smartphones, the two companies announced Monday.

The groundbreaking partnership aims to take on Apple's iPhone, along with other operating systems that span across multiple devices, including Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows Mobile. But Intel and Nokia said the MeeGo platform will extend beyond smartphones and will be flexible enough to scale to larger devices like full-fledged computers or in-car systems.

Renee James, Intel's vice president in charge of software, told The New York Times that although Android is "fantastic," it is also too "specific" and restrictive to run on a wide variety of devices, particularly more complex ones.

"I think it's important that there are alternatives that are truly open for innovation," James reportedly said.

Intel previously announced its Moblin operating system for low-cost notebooks running the company's low-power Atom processor. And Nokia's Maemo 5.0, first introduced last summer, was expected to play an integral role in the company's smartphones to come. The move would seem to signal the end of both platforms, though Nokia still intends to sell smartphones based on its Symbian platform.

Another interesting note by the Times: Since the platform will run on ARM-based processors (in addition to Atom), Intel will be lending support to an operating system that benefits one of its competitors. Apple has used ARM processors in its iPhone, and created a custom version of the Cortex-A9 chip, known as the Apple A4, for its recently announced iPad.

Nokia has not yet announced whether it will build any handsets or devices based on Intel's Atom processor. Both companies will keep their separate application stores: Intel's AppUp for netbooks, and Nokia's Ovi software store will remain, despite the partnership.

The first devices running MeeGo, including a new phone from Nokia, are expected to arrive later in 2010.

Nokia and Apple currently have a number of lawsuits directed at each other, making accusations of patent violations on both parties' behalves. As the iPhone has grown in popularity, Nokia has retained its status as the market leader, but has suffered significant losses at the hands of competitors.

Depending on how good Windows 7 is this will be either the only competitor for Android left (for non apple consumer phones) or a total flop. If there is one platform why have 2 app stores? Will they charge developers twice for the same app?

I'll say it now FAILURE.... So now Intel is doing software, again another attempt of a company who know silicon trying to do something outside their core competency. Every time Intel tried to get into something they hope would sell more processors it fails.

sounds as though intel wants to cover its bases - ARM experience because it's usage has exploded with the smartphone market, and software experience so they know better what a developer is looking for in a chip!

To be fair there really is no alternative for these companies. They must unite their code bases to have any chance of (giving the impression to their shareholders that they are) competing with Apple.

But its all self-defeating. If you are a developer, what ever you think of Apple, you know at the very least that they have a total commitment to developing the Cocoa Touch OS for the next 10 years. Where will these other mobile OS's be in 12 months never mind 10 years?

I for one am happy because it means Apple is successful, if major mobile players have to unite into one bullpen to topple Apple and secondly Apple will have to raise its game to manage this competition and if anyone thinks this is not stiff competition, well I hope Apple do not take your view.

I'll say it now FAILURE.... So now Intel is doing software, again another attempt of a company who know silicon trying to do something outside their core competency. Every time Intel tried to get into something they hope would sell more processors it fails.

Have their motherboard and chipset divisions failed? What are you talking about? "Every time"?

besides Apple and RIM who have been doing hardware and software for a while everyone else is playing catchup.
Palm, Nokia & Samsung have stopped using someone else's OS.
Microsoft and Google have the OS but not their own hardware.
Motorola & Sony are still getting burned using someone else's OS...AGAIN!

I think Maemo could be something great if it was hyped more AND if it could sync with Macs as well. Imagine a smartphone that syncs seamlessly with the Mac without having to use iTunes and a freaking cable all the time. A phone with which you could wirelessly transfer files from one phone to the other via Bluetooth. Something like my Nokia E65 but with a better OS and better interface. Man that would be heaven. As things are now, I'd rather buy an Android phone plus The Missing Sync than an N900 or an iPhone.

I think Maemo could be something great if it was hyped more AND if it could sync with Macs as well. Imagine a smartphone that syncs seamlessly with the Mac without having to use iTunes and a freaking cable all the time. A phone with which you could wirelessly transfer files from one phone to the other via Bluetooth. Something like my Nokia E65 but with a better OS and better interface. Man that would be heaven. As things are now, I'd rather buy an Android phone plus The Missing Sync than an N900 or an iPhone.

OS X sync is next on Nokia's Ovi synch roadmap so your wish may become reality soonish. Bluetooth data exchange has worked on all Nokia phones for quite a while.

The key to Nokia's approach is not MeeGo or Symbian, it seems to be Qt which provides you with the possibility of writing code once and then compiling it for MeeGo, Symbian, Windows, Linux and OS X (Cocoa) without code changes. That will generate a much wider base for applications than anyone else if it catches on.

As to how easy is it to write to Qt specs, I don't really know (not a developer). Qt is already quite widely used (google Maps for example). But I'm really not qualified on this topic and is just a layman's view.

It is interesting to say the least as it seems like Nokia is refocusing itself to be platform agnostic to some extent. After all, both of their Mobile OSs are now full open source. The only "closed" part (at least to some extent) is Qt, which you have to pay at least a developer's license for.

I may be wrong on many of these accounts as this is just a "mind flow" post after a busy work day and quickly reading today's news on areas which is not my forte (app-. development).

It is almost amusing to see the fight that is going in the world outside of Apple and RIM. Let the fragmentation continue!

How many operating systems do we have now?

Symbian
BADA
MEEGO (me too?)
WebOS
WinMo
Android

I can't wait to find out who will be the winner of these, haha.

World outside Apple and RIM? Isn't Symbian still market share leader? OK, Symbian will become the "bargian bin" OS for cheap entry level smartphones (like my Nokia 5530 XpressMusic) but that means it will be pretty ubiquitous and not easy to ignore for app developers.

Here in Belgium, those cheap touch screen Samsungs and Nokias are flying off the shelves. In a country where it is against the law to sell locked phones, you can imagine appeal for a 500+ Euro phone isn't that big

Why is the app store a demonstration as to why having multiple sources of software isn't a bright idea?

A single source is a huge advantage to the common user. Even platforms like Linux, that are open, support repositories that make life easier for the user.

Quote:

It's worked for every available platform for decades.

Actually it hasn't. One of the reasons the Linux distros became successful is that they recognized that users need an easy way to find, get, install and maintain their systems. Linux would not be where it is today without repositories.

Like wise the iPhone which really took off once third party software became common. That is not to say Apples approach is perfect but it is undeniable that app store soured sales.

Have their motherboard and chipset divisions failed? What are you talking about? "Every time"?

Ah they are a Silicon processor company so it makes sense that chipset and motherboard is an extension of that, but the motherboard business really does not make that much for them, they use it to make reference design so others can use it... however...

Let see their video conference and software business failed, their flash business failed, (yeah I know they sold it before it really failed) their networking business failed, and the list goes on.

They do these things in hopes it will enable more business and most of the time it never did what they hope it would. Why do you think Apple went its own way with a processor for the ipad since Intel has no clue how to make a truly mobile processor.

So many companies are trying to be GE, when in fact they should only focus on what they do best and in the case of Intel they are Mircoprocessor company, they are good, not necessarily best but they is what the know.

A single source is a huge advantage to the common user. Even platforms like Linux, that are open, support repositories that make life easier for the user.

Ummm....why? You seem to be just repeating the assertion without saying why a second (or dozenth) source is inferior.

My guess is that the simple folk would continue to go to the app store, even if the rest of us were to think different and use alternatives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69

Actually it hasn't. One of the reasons the Linux distros became successful is that they recognized that users need an easy way to find, get, install and maintain their systems. Linux would not be where it is today without repositories.

The point I was responding to was that a single repository is best, rather than multiple repositories.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69

Like wise the iPhone which really took off once third party software became common. That is not to say Apples approach is perfect but it is undeniable that app store soured sales.

The question is not whether or not third party software is available. The question is whether it is best to restrict all software acquisition to a single source.

Ah they are a Silicon processor company so it makes sense that chipset and motherboard is an extension of that, but the motherboard business really does not make that much for them, they use it to make reference design so others can use it... however...

Right. The OP claimed that "Every time Intel tried to get into something they hope would sell more processors it fails."

Depending on how good Windows 7 is this will be either the only competitor for Android left (for non apple consumer phones) or a total flop. If there is one platform why have 2 app stores? Will they charge developers twice for the same app?

Uh, because Nokia's phones will keep running with ARM processors and the netbook ones will use Atom? And a smartphone and a netbook require quite different user interfaces.

OS X sync is next on Nokia's Ovi synch roadmap so your wish may become reality soonish. Bluetooth data exchange has worked on all Nokia phones for quite a while.

The key to Nokia's approach is not MeeGo or Symbian, it seems to be Qt which provides you with the possibility of writing code once and then compiling it for MeeGo, Symbian, Windows, Linux and OS X (Cocoa) without code changes. That will generate a much wider base for applications than anyone else if it catches on.

As to how easy is it to write to Qt specs, I don't really know (not a developer). Qt is already quite widely used (google Maps for example). But I'm really not qualified on this topic and is just a layman's view.

It is interesting to say the least as it seems like Nokia is refocusing itself to be platform agnostic to some extent. After all, both of their Mobile OSs are now full open source. The only "closed" part (at least to some extent) is Qt, which you have to pay at least a developer's license for.

I may be wrong on many of these accounts as this is just a "mind flow" post after a busy work day and quickly reading today's news on areas which is not my forte (app-. development).

Regs, Jarkko

QT is very open. It is LGPL licensed so there is no need for a developers license unless you want to modify QT itself. Linking to QT for most apps is not problem.

And QT is extremely easy to use. You can write directly to the QT API in C++ or use Python though the QT/Python bindings. There are bindings for other languages as well. QT Kinetic project is currently producing QT Declarative (QML) which is a UI layout language that can be bound with native C++ or Javascript. It is fully cross platform and is exceptionally easy to use. If you can layout HTML you can produce apps in QML.

QT is probably most well known for being the layer under the KDE desktop on Linux, but you would be surprised how many major applications depend on it (Google Earth, etc).

QT is very open. It is LGPL licensed so there is no need for a developers license unless you want to modify QT itself. Linking to QT for most apps is not problem.

And QT is extremely easy to use. You can write directly to the QT API in C++ or use Python though the QT/Python bindings. There are bindings for other languages as well. QT Kinetic project is currently producing QT Declarative (QML) which is a UI layout language that can be bound with native C++ or Javascript. It is fully cross platform and is exceptionally easy to use. If you can layout HTML you can produce apps in QML.

QT is probably most well known for being the layer under the KDE desktop on Linux, but you would be surprised how many major applications depend on it (Google Earth, etc).

Thanks. That's the drift I had gotten as well. Just wasn't sure. Are the Dev tools open as well? And how does all of this compare to Apple's dev environment (one of the things that enables so many Apps in the App Store)?

I did read some declarations that Qt is just as easy as Apple's or even easier and makes it easier to write bug free code. It's just difficult to know what is BS marketing (on both sides) and what is the truth.

But Qt is interesting to say the least. If it takes off, the potential for Apps is several decades over the App Store potential. That's why I'm trying to get my bearings on this one. I realised this somewhere last summer and now it seems to be coming together. We live in interesting times.

But Qt is interesting to say the least. If it takes off, the potential for Apps is several decades over the App Store potential. That's why I'm trying to get my bearings on this one. I realised this somewhere last summer and now it seems to be coming together. We live in interesting times.
Regs, Jarkko

Terve Jarkko

The following site has really great resources for Mac development and languages. While aimed at scientists, their tutorials on Cocoa, OpenCL etc are excellent. Not sure what they have on IphoneOS dev tools, but, as I am sure you are aware, they are the same as the regular Xcode tools (at least for the most part).